HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Rachel building strong ca...

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:21 PM

 

Rachel building strong case for a Clinton/Warren

Warren, the "consolidating VP to compensate for Bernie".

As I posted earlier today, I see some wisdom in "handcuffing Warren to Clinton"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2221704

Discussion?

10 replies, 1201 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rachel building strong case for a Clinton/Warren (Original post)
99th_Monkey Jun 2016 OP
Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #1
99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #2
Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #5
w4rma Jun 2016 #3
Lucky Luciano Jun 2016 #4
Mc Mike Jun 2016 #6
99th_Monkey Jun 2016 #7
loyalsister Jun 2016 #8
Mc Mike Jul 2016 #9
loyalsister Jul 2016 #10

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:26 PM

1. Republican Massachusetts governor messes it up. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:30 PM

2. Could you elaborate?

 

for those of us in the dark as to your meaning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:44 PM

5. The post below yours seems to refute what I was thinking.

That post also basically explains my concern.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lucky Luciano (Reply #1)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:37 PM

3. Wrong. If Warren is Clinton's VP, Harry Reid has a plan to replace her

 

If Warren were to vacate her seat, Massachusetts law says that a date of a special election "shall not be more than 160 nor less than 145 days after the date that a vacancy is created or a failure to choose occurs" -- but in the meantime, Baker has the authority to appoint a Republican successor.

However, Reid and his advisors have found an awkward work around: Warren can file an intent-to-resign letter 145 days prior to a January 20th inauguration date, which would block Baker from making an appointment as Warren would still be in office. However, in this scenario, if a Clinton-Warren ticket were to lose in November, Warren would have to rescind her resignation and run for what would then be an open seat.

Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin's office, confirmed to CBS News the legality of Reid's loophole.

Alternatively, and perhaps more realistically, Warren could also file for resignation on November 8th, the day after the election, in the case that Clinton wins, giving Baker the authority to appoint a temporary replacement who would serve between Clinton's inauguration and the date of the special election. This would potentially eliminate the possibility of a Democratic majority come January, while still giving Democrats the opportunity to quickly retake the seat.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/if-warren-is-clintons-vp-harry-reid-has-a-plan-to-replace-her/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to w4rma (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 27, 2016, 09:43 PM

4. Ok that would be pretty cool. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 12:43 PM

6. Yeah, but we need her to be an active V.P.,

like Poppy bush was under Raygun, or dick cheney was under l'il bush. Someone who is working on a ton of policy initiatives, in charge of a lot of key administration task forces. We don't need her to be a ceremonial back up president, who just delivers soundbytes but can't work on delivering for her progressive vision.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:02 PM

7. 110% agreed. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 30, 2016, 02:15 PM

8. She doesn't have enough experience to pull that off

Poppy Bush and Cheney both had previous experience in high level govt. offices. Warrned has been a senator for a relatively short time and has not been in a leadership role. I think Reid and Clinton both would love to keep her quiet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loyalsister (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:45 PM

9. You're right, on some points.

The more corporate-inclined in the leadership would not want her to be a functional V.P. Both those bad activist VPs did have a lot of previous time around various sectors of gov and politics.

But I don't see her wanting to chair a pro corporate powerful and secret energy task force, get involved in handing out sweetheart contracts to privatized military adventures, or head the anti-drug and anti-terror efforts. She could bring her knowledge and activism to bear in the areas of Health Care expansion, since she was an expert witness for the gov on massive home foreclosures caused by medical cost induced bankruptcies, and CFPB enforcement.

Warren's trajectory, if she rose to VP or Prez, would be much the same as that of Prez Obama. He hasn't delivered on a lot of progressive things I would have liked, but did an astounding job in many respects. Much better than the job done by Poppy bush, who had gov experience coming out the wazoo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mc Mike (Reply #9)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 05:01 PM

10. She would have to loyal to the leadership in congress and the executive branch

What she wants and what she has to do very well could be two different things. On the flip side, Bush as president was bad enough imagine if the Chenney had gone against him and implemented his full agenda? I think he would have gone far beyond the damage Bush did. I suppose with that in mind we could be grateful that he was loyal to a degree.

I think we also would want someone who is much younger. At some point the Dem leadership is going to have to groom younger candidates. The baby boomer bench is naturally shrinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread